




^ 



G4 G7 
opy 1 



■' • '" 1'"^ ^vcii. I jKiuJi, o l^ENTS. 



^ ' ' ' u L rj4jj:LiJ:rrLr rnriiTTT 



U^i 



IHti 





]j 



1 I I I I 




INSUFFICIENCY 



OF 



HENRY GEORGE'S THEORY. 



BY LAURENCE GRONLUND. 



New York Labor News Company, 

172 FIRST AVENUE, 
iVEW YORK. 




^ l-J-^ LLLLLLlTIIiTriTTTTT 



Ml ' I 



.1 I I I I I I I I I 



-v. Y , as M Class \J ail Ala r Copyright, lSHf5. by N. Y Lf 



abnr News Co. 



^ 



Insufficiency of Henry George's Theory. 



This criticism is not intended to be a gage of battle to 
Henry George, but a warning to the members of, and 
sympathizers with, the United Labor Party. Not only do 
we highly esteem the noble qualities of his head and heart ; 
not only do we warmly recognize the great services he has 
rendered to the cause of reform, as well by his splendid refu- 
tation of the hatefulMalthusian doctrine, as by his fusion of 
so many progressive elements into a political party ; but, 
more particularly, we consider Henry George the forerunner 
of Socialism in these United States, and the entering wedge 
for our ideas into American minds. Just now, however, we 
Socialists, feel a solemn duty devolving upon us. A short 
time ago a call was issued for the meeting of^ convention of 
the United Labor Party of this State a couple of months 
hence, which call on the one hand omits all mention of, and 
even allusion to, "the perverse economic system which robs 
the producer of a large share of the fruits of his labor" that 
liad such a prominent place in the constitution adopted by 
the Party of New York county ; and, on the other hand, lays 
almost exclusive stress on the land-theories and "remedy" 
of George. We deem this a most unfortunate, retrograde 
step, the more so as the constitution itself did not condemn 
the wage-system sufficiently to perfectly satisfy us ; but this 
retreat is a sharp reminder to us that it is high time to ex- 
amine these theories from a Socialist point of view and, 
especially, to show that they are by no means a universal 
panacea for our social troubles as some consider them. This 
criticism, therefore, will attempt, in as few words as possible, 
to prove first, that the doctrines of George,. though to a cer- 
tain extent true, are altogether too narrow and one-sided ; 
next, that his " remedy " is in every way impracticable and 
inadequate ; and, lastly, oppose to them the teachings and 
expediency of modern Socialism. 



L 

ONE-SIDEDNESS OF HIS ARGUMENTS. 

George, in his celebrated work Progress and Poverty,"^ 
seeks an answer to the question : " What is it that produces 
poverty amid advancing wealth ?" 

Seeks an answer ? IS o ; it is just the trouble that he is not 
seeliiig the answer. It is, precisely, the peculiarity of 
Progress and Poverty^ and the feature that causes, as we shall 
see, a great deal of mischief, that he is, evidently, from the 
start determined on a certain solution ; that the answer is, 
and probably for a lon^ time previous to writing his book 
was, a foregone conclusion in his mind. This foregone con- 
clusion is, that what produces poverty is land and land- 
holders. We know that in his book he boasts, and probably 
in all sincerity, of having reached this conclusion " by an ex- 
amination in which every step has been proved and secured," 
(page 237), but, as a matter of fact, we find him, at ^very 
step that he takes, confining himself to the examination of 
but one side of the road. Indeed, he seems to be stone-blind 
in one eye. This is apparent at the very first fact which he 
advances, after having made his preparations and cleared 
the road, and which is to conduct himself and his readers to 
the right solution. This first fact settles his conclusion, and 
settles, also, our criticism. 

Here is the fact : interest does not increase. " Increase of 
rent, rise of land-values," is the invariable mark of material 
progress, " while neither wages nor interest anywhere in- 
crease. The increase of rent explains why wages and interest 
do not increase. The cause which gives to the landholder is 
the cause which denies to the laborer and capitalist.'' (Page 
162.) 

Interest does not increase ! What does this mean ? 
"Interest" is a very ambiguous word. Is it possible that 
George can mean, that the sums which annually are paid 
into capitalist pockets in the form of interest, that the in- 

* All references to this book and others by George will be from the editions 
of LoTell & Co. 

••"■ MAY 23 131f! 



comes of capitalists do not increase?. It is difficult for the 
thoughtful reader to believe that it is really this which 
George affirms, and yet so it is. In the above passage he 
speaks of the capitalist being wronged, " denied." On page 
267 he says : " The improvements which increase the pro- 
ductive power of labor and capital, increase the reward of 
neither. However astounding, then, Geoige comes to the 
conclusion, affirms and reaffirms, that only landholders grow 
richer and richer by our material progress, while capitalists 
do not get their proper share and are, in fact, in the same 
boat as the wage-workers. But how, may be asked, can he 
come to such a preposterous conclusion, since if he but 
glances at the other side, he will see that landholders consti- 
tute but a small portion of our monied class, and by no 
means the richest portion. 

Well, as was said, he is stone-blind in that eye. 

In the next place, it is by the shifting use of an ambiguous 
word that he imposes on himself, and more remarkable still, 
on thousands of quick-witted wage-earners. When at first he 
says "interest does not increase" he means,*that the rate of 
interest does not increase. 

Well, that the rate of interest constantly diminishes, is, of 
course, a fact; but what of that? This does not at all, as 
every schoolboy knows, prevent the income of the capitalist 
from constantly growing, from growing at a tremendous 
rate, from growing much faster than the income of the land- 
lord from increasing rent. The capitalist has a greater in- 
come from $2000 at 4 per cent, than from $1000 at 5 per cent. 
Indeed, the increase of rent and decrease of the rate of in- 
terest have at bottom the same cause, for the landowner's 
fortune can increase in no other way than by a rise in 
rent, since the land cannot increase in area as George so 
often insists on, while in spite of diminishing rate of interest, 
the fortune of the capitalist increases to such gigantic pro- 
portions that, to be profitably employed, it necessitates ai. 
still lower rate. 

The conclusion, that only landholders benefit from our 
material progress, he is thus brought to by the most aston- 
ishing piece of self-deception. 

Again, we find that George is blind to the most important 
element in the up-building of these fortunes. He refuses to 



acknowledge that there is anything that, properly, can be 
called 'profits. He calls (page 116) Buckle " inextricably con- 
fused," because this author "persistently speaks of the dis- 
tribution of wealth into rent, wages, interest and 'profits.'''^ 
" We want to find," he says, (page 118), " what it is that de- 
termines the division of the joint produce between land, 
labor and capital, and ' profits ' is not a term that refers ex- 
clusively to any one of these three divisions," and so he 
wants to have nothing at all to do with it. 

Yet our whole industrial system is founded, precisely, 07i 
profits. Our wage-system might be called the profit-system. 
It is the enterprising fellow (whom, since George cannot help 
to mention him, he very happily calls " the mover in produc- 
tion ") who hires the wage-earner and pays him wages, who 
borrows from the capitalist and pays him interest, who 
leases from the landlord and pays him rent, all in order that 
he may pocket the profits, all exclusively for the sake of the 
profits, and that he may, himself, become a capitalist. Some- 
times these enterprising fellows club together, and then they 
also hire a manager, and pay him wages of superintendence, 
so as clearly to show that their profits, which they call " divi- 
dends," are unearned. And it is these profits that, under our 
industrial system, give rise to wages, interest and rent, these 
profits which serve as steam to our industrial machinery, and 
form the foundation of the fortunes of the world, that George 
unceremoniously eliminates. 

But there are other pages of George's book that show how 
the foregone conclusion has not merely blinded his one eye 
but " inextricably " twisted his mind, and that is his original 
argument in justification of interest. It is, indeed, more 
than original ; it is artful- We read (page 133.) " It seems 
to me, that it is this which is the cause of interest." What ? 
Here it comes : " While many things might be mentioned 
which like money, or planes, or planks, or engines, or cloth- 
ing," or, in fact, nearly all that we call wealth, "have no in- 
nate power of increase, yet other things are included in the 
terms wealth and capital, which like wine, will of themselves 
increase in quality up to a certain point ; or like bees, or 
cattle, will of themselves increase in quantity ; and certain 



•George's italics. 



other tilings, such as seeds, which, though the conditions 
which enable them to increase may not be maintained with- 
out labor, yet will, when these conditions are maintained 
yield an increase, or give a return over and above that which 
is to be attributed to labor." 

This, then, is what, on page 133, seems to me, (mark that !) 
to be the cause of interest. But a little further on, on page 
138, there is no doubt of it, there it is settled that it is, for 
we read : " Thus interest springs from the power of increase 
wliich the reproductive forces of Nature give to capital. It 
is not an arbitrary, but a natural thing. It is not the result 
of a particular social organization, but of laios of the universe 
which underlie society. It is therefore, just.'' 

Why, this argument is the most extraordinary sophism 
that ever deceived an author ! And then it is so evident 
that it was suggested to George by his desire to give his 
whole attention to the case of landowners. It is hardly worth 
while to notice that Niiture always works gr%tis, and that if 
wine, cattle, bees and seed create values, it is because they 
require human labor and receive human attention. There is 
another, and very different consideration, that at once dis- 
poses of the argument. George himself says in another con- 
nection (page 247) : " It is the greater that swallows up the 
less, not the lesser that swallows up the greater." Exactly, 
and that applies here. Wine, cattle, bees and seed form such 
an insignificant part of all values, that they could not possibly 
govern and lay down laws for the rest, and they do not do it. 

No, it is quite another thing which — does not justify, but — 
makes interest perfectly legitimate under the present prot^'^- 
system. Our enterprising feUow whom we spoke of above, 
the " mover " in production, borrows money, in order to 
make more money by it — make profits by it — and he generally 
succeeds. It is therefore only just, that he share his profits 
with the capitalist. Interest thus is simply a fair divide, 
therefore legitimate, as long as this system lasts, but no 
longer. As soon as this profit-system falls, interest will 
again become usu7y as of old, when people only borrowed, 
because they were in distress. But all the time interest is 
the monopoly -^YicQ, paid for the use of capital, as rent is the 
monopoly-'price, paid for the use of land. 

By these fallacies and expedients George has had no diffi- 
culty in convincing himself that it is rent (page 163) "that 



— 6 — 

swallows up the gain, at the expense of wages (the share of 
the laborer) and interest (the share of capital), and pauperism 
accompanies progress," and also, that (page 149) " capital 
is but a form of labor," a twin-sister so to speak, equally 
suffering. 

But now we come to the climax, the argument which in 
Progress and Poverty George merely considers a test, to 
which he is willing to submit, but which in all his later books 
and writings he insists o^ as his chief and unanswerable 
reason for his theory of the absolute wrongfulness of private 
property in land. It is, by the way, an argument in the style 
of the French philosophers of the last century who delighted 
in starting from one axiom or another, derived from their 
own inner consciousness, and making deductions therefrom 
till they arrived at such conclusions as suited them. This 
argument of George is found on pase 239 and following' 
pages, and is this : A man has a right to himself, therefore 
a right to the fruits of his own exertions, therefore no right 
to what is not the fruit of his own exertions, therefore not to 
land. 

Now it must be observed that the " land " George here 
means, is, on the one hand, bare land, bereft of all improve- 
ments; and on the other hand, land which has got value. 
By saying that no individual has a right to land, he then 
means that no individual has a right to what is generally 
called ground-values. Again, land in that sense he dis- 
tinguishes from capital, saying that the latter is the fruit of 
a man's exertions, but that the former is not, is " an element 
like air, water and sunlight." 

That is, precisely, what land is not. How can he say that, 
when he insists on the vabie of land? Has air and sunli'ght 
value? Has water value except/. ^., that of Chicago, which 
is tapped from Lake Michigan, pumped up into peoples' 
houses, and which they pay for ? And what distinction is 
there between such water and capital? In fact, the distinc- 
tion he makes between land and capital is absolutely baseless. 

There was a time when land had no value ; that was dur- 
ing the Middle Ages, when the workers belonged to, ivere a 
2oart of the land, and when it could not be bought and sold, 
^ow when it is bought and sold like any other ware, it has 
value like any other ware, that is to say a value determined 



— 7 — 

by the human labor embodied in it, above and below which de- 
mand and supply make its price vibrate. George himseK 
says, {Protection and Free Trade^ page 291) : " Land in itself 
has no value. Vahie arises only from human labor.'" It is, 
then, not God who has created the value of land, but Man. 

Further, bare, valuable land stands exactly on the same 
footing as capital. The value of both is created by the labor — 
not of ^ their possessors, but — of other people. Such land- 
value is created by the surrounding improvements, by grad- 
ing, by streets, railroads, etc. Growth of population alone 
creates nothing ; there must be some that work. And capital 
is accumulated from rents, interests and profits, all together 
constituting fleecings from the fruits of labor. It is, then, 
land and capital that are tivin-sisters. 

Land and capital, together, constitute means of labor, means 
of 2^yoduction. We are living in an age when we can do with- 
out neither. We now have nothing to do with ages when one 
would get along with bow and arrow, canoe and such things 
that one could make for himself. That is the reason why 
progress demands that both land and capital be placed under 
collective control. 

It is then clear that Henry George has not surveyed the 
whole field, and that his theory for that reason is entirely 
too narrow, but he has at all events brought his disciples out 
on the road that leads to socialism, that is to say to a 
position where they must come to find it illogical to remain. 



II. 

INADEQUATENE8S OF HIS '' liEMEDYr 

But not merely is his theory too narrow, we insist that his 
*' remedy," that of confiscating all rent, ivill not accomplish 
luhat he predicts, when reduced to practice. 

We, then, lay no stress here on two objections that might 
be made to its practicability and expediency, but shall only 
just mention them. 

George claims that such a tax as he proposes, confiscating 
all land-values, is constitutional and, particularly, does not 
require a change in the Constitution of the United States. 
This is doubtful. And if that consitution is to be changed, 
it is certainly better to agitate for complete instead of partial 
Socialism. 

Again, there are many persons with tender consciences^ 
who will say that it is one thing to make all means of produc- 
tion into collective property, as we Socialists propose ; that 
such a measure would be proper enough, even if no com- 
pensation were paid, since all proprietors would be treated 
alike ; but to deprive one class, the landowners, of their pos- 
sessions, without compensation, and at the same time leave 
all other capitalist classes in quiet enjoyment of their wealth 
is quite another thing, is, in fact, nothing but downright rob- 
bery. 

But we pass over to far more serious objections. 

First, consider the " remedy " as a fiscal policy. It is evi- 
dent that George expects enormous revenues to flow annually 
into the cofters of the nation from the confiscation of rent. 
Thus he says (page 326, Progress and Poverty): "It will be- 
come possible for it to realize the dream of socialism. Gov- 
ernment could take upon itself the transmission of messages 
by telegraph, as well as by mail, of building and operating 
railroads, as well as of opening and maintaining common 
roads. There would be a great and increasing surplus 
revenue from the taxation of land values, for material pro- 
gress which would go on with greatly accelerated rapidity 
would tend constantly to increase rent. We might not 



— 9 - 

establish public tables — they would be unnecessary — but we 
could establish public baths, museums, libraries, gardens, 
lecture rooms, music and dancing halls, theaters, universities, 
technical schools, shooting galleries, play-grounds, gymna- 
siums, etc. Heat, light and motive power, as well as water,, 
might be conducted through our streets at public expense, 
our roads be lined with fruit trees ; discoverers and inventors 
rewarded, scientific investigations supported, and in a thou- 
sand ways the public revenues made to foster efforts for the 
public benefit. We should reach the ideal of the Socialist, 
but not through governmental repression. Government 
would change its character and would become the adminis- 
tration of a great co- operative society." 

Now remember the enormous sums that the above mag- 
nificent schemes would cost are to be defrayed out of what 
is left after providing for the ordinary running expenses of 
the federal government, the several States, counties, cities, 
and townships, for all other taxes, of whatever nature are in- 
tendev by him to be abolished. But what reason is there to 
expect \ ^y such revenue from this single tax, or anything 
like it? oreorge has, to our knowledge, never framed a. 
budget, based on his ideas. The whole proposition is thus a 
leap into the dark, but perhaps it is possible to throw a ray 
of light into the darkness. 

The federal census report of 1880 estimates all the real 
estate of the Union for that year, that is to say all farms, and 
all land with its improvements, all mines, all churches and 
public buildings at something less than $23,000 million. But 
do not for a moment take that as the amount on which to 
levy rent. First all improvement should be deducted. Then 
should George's "remedy" ever be adopted, there will be a 
vast shrinkage in land-values, for at present the greater part 
thereof is purely speculative, as he not merely admits but 
insists upon. And to this must be added an item of immense 
import. The agricultural lands of the Union, instead of now 
furnishing ten thousand millions of the above estimate, 
will furnish a comparatively very, very small part of the taxes 
under George's scheme. Among his answers to queries in his 
journal, the Standard, George has this : " So far from expect- 
ing to raise taxes from farmers by taxing land-values, we ex- 
pect to lessen the taxes from farmers and raise most public 
revenues from mines and city lots " And here another : " If 



— 10 — 

the owner of a farm increases its productiveness, the increase 
belongs not to the category of land but to that of improve- 
ments, and would on the plan proposed in Progress and 
Poverty, he exempt from taxation.'' So on this plan the cities 
would have to provide for the country, an arrangement that 
might not be satisfactory to either party. 

Let us now see how the "budget" would balance. Five 
per cent, annual rent of $23,000 millions makes $1100 miUions. 
Deduct from that the taxes paid on improvements ; then the 
shrinkage caused by speculative values being eliminated, 
and then the loss of taxes from agricultural land. On the 
other hand consider that the federal revenues now amount 
to about $300 million, and the revenues of the States, coun- 
ties, cities and townships to 312 million, in all more than 
$600 miUion, and it is evident that both ends will not meet- 
not to speak of any surplus with which to realize his magnifi- 
cent schemes. It is clear that the mind of George has been 
dazzled by the extraordinary wealth of a few silver-mines 
and by the very rise in the speculative value of city lots 
which he denounces. 

No, then the plan of Godin, of Guise, France, is more 
practical. He and George have many things in common; 
lie has the same fondness as George for abstract reasoning 
and general principles, but lacks George's eloquence and 
personal magnetism. He also wants to put an end to the 
monopoly by the rich of Nature's gifts, but proposes for that 
purpose, instead of taking away the possessions of a single 
class, that the State shall on the death of proprietors, con- 
£scate part of their estates, a small proportion of small for- 
tunes, and an increasing one as the estates are larger until 
it be one-half of the very large fortunes. These funds Godm 
then, further, like George, wants to substitute for all other 
taxes, which the surplus, also with him a very large one, he 
proposes to use in abolishing pauperism. But he meets m 
France with about the same obstacles as George in America. 
The possessing class ignore him, rather than violently oppose 
him, as they "do here George, and the Socialists will have 
nothing to do with his "remedy," as being nothing but a 
-weak, illogical compromise. 

But the greatest illusion of George as to the practical con- 
sequences of confiscating rent is still to be considered. It 



— Il- 
ls as to the remarkable increase of well-being for the wage- 
earners which he confidently expects. He thinks their homes 
will be vastly improved, that they never more, will be de- 
pendent on the employing classes, that production will as- 
sume wondrous proportions, and wages reach their very 
highest point. 
What an illusion ! 

This illusion is caused, precisely by this that George 
wants by hook or by crook, to make Capital and Labor into 
twin-sisters — which they are if the horse -leech and the horse 
can be called "twin-sisters." Capitalists, including land- 
owners, are in possession of all the means of labor, including 
raw materials ; the workers have, as a rule, nothing but their 
naked labor. In order to live, they are therefore under the 
necessity of accepting employment from the capitalist classes 
on the best terms they can obtain ; and these terms are, as a 
matter of fact, to work, say five hours for themselves daily, 
on condition that they will work the other fivl hours daily for 
their masters' gratis. This gratuitous work results in what 
vp^e may Gd^ fleecing s, and these fleecings are then distributed 
among the capitalist classes under the names of rent, interest 
and profit. Now it is clear as sunlight, that immunity from 
taxation would benefit the capitalist classes solely ; it will 
not diminish the items profit and interest. It cannot possibly 
increase wages, for free land will not enable the workers to 
create with their bare hands raw materials and other means 
of labor, but it may actually bring tuages doivn to the increased 
cheapness of living that might follow. 

But, says George, production will increase so much, that 
instead of laborers competing for work, the employers w^ill 
compete to get workers. Well, when land has been closed 
to the "enterprise" of capitalists, they very likely will invest 
more capital in industry — and thereby, by the way, create a 
still wilder competition, more " overproduction," and more 
crises. But there will be just as many " hands " seeking work 
as now, and if not, immigration will soon bring them in. 
But, replies George, a worker with a home will not accept 
such low wages as a homeless man. Indeed he wdll ; experi- 
ence, precisely, teaches that a man with a home, thus nailed 
to a given spot, a certain locality, since he cannot live off 
his home, is the very man to cut doion toages, the very man to 
hold aloof from his comrades in a strike. And, then, how 



— 12 — 

can George be so sure that the workman will have a "home?" 
A bare lot does not make a home ; how is he going to have a 
house built ? 

These considerations show that George's "remedy" is no 
remedy at all. Confiscation of rent, or even State ownership 
of all laud, standing alone, will accomplish nothing, or next to 
nothing. True, land should be nationalized; as part of a 
comprehensive programme such nationalization is the right 
thing, but to commence the programme with such a demand 
is, in the United States, commencing from the wrong end; it 
is antagonizing the very class, the farmers, whom we want 
to benefit, for they, in the first place, will lose the grip on 
their farms. Why, the nationalization of agricultural land is 
here the very last thing to be thought of. The writer of this 
had a short time ago, a talk about George, in London, with 
Kev. Stewart Headlam, of the Church Reformer. At the close 
he said .• " So you think me a fool for being a disciple of 
Henry George!" "A fool! No. Why, if I were a citizen 
here, I should be a follower of George to a great extent." 
In Great Britain land is i\iQ first "means of labor" to revo- 
lutionize. This is the most remarkable thing about George, 
that he, an American, should have hatched such a British 
idea, and one at the same time so ^^?^- American. 

There are other things that render George's "remedy" im- 
practicable, /. i., that he must first convince his countrymen 
that Free Trade is such a blessed thing, but of these matters 
we need not insist. 



III. 

ABOLITION OF THE WAGE-SYSTEM AND THE 
SUBSTITUTION OF SOCIAL CO-OPERATION 

So far, however, we have really, but unavoidably, been 
beating round the bush; we shall now go to the kernel of the 
difference between Henry George and Socialists. He says in 
Social Problems, (page 66) : " There are deep wrongs in the 
present constitution of society, but they are not wrongs in- 
herent in the constitution of man, nor in those social laws 
which are as truly the laws of the Creator as are the laws of 
the physical universes. They are wrongs resulting from bad 
adjustments which it is within our power to amend.'' 

Of the al' ^ve we only agree with him in this : that " they 
are not wrr inherent in the constitution of man." For 

the rest, G^^^^ only wants to " amend" "bad adjustments," 
but not, of course, " social laws." But what are, in his eyes, 
such "social laws?" Ah, here comes in his fundamental 
blunder ; he calls the ivage-system, competition, the capacity of 
capital to absorb interest, " social laws, as truly the laws of 
the Creator, as are the laws of the physical universe " — and 
yet they have only played a role for a couple of hundred 
years at most. He, however, considers them as existing from 
eternity and destined to last forever. He wants simply to 
cure the bad effects of our social arrangements ; he has had 
his whole attention directed to one bad symptom, and, like an 
empiric " doctor," he brings his " remedy," and another, 
" doctor " Godin, brings his " remedy " — both being led by 
the noblest and most generous instincts. But neither of 
them has the smallest idea of changing our present social 
arrangements. We, as much as George, wish to do away 
with private property in land. Why, then, do we not follow 
his lead ? Because ho wants to keep the land in the hands of 
private individuals as at present, to be exploited for private 
profit. There is where we fundamentally differ from him. And 
this is not merely a matter of difference in policy : it is a 
matter of difference in social philosophy. 



- 14 



We have, we think, a good illustration at hand. We. 
Socialists, say that society is precisely m the state ol a child, 
who is about shedding its first teeth and getting its second 
permanent set. This is a transition period for the child, bo 
society is now in a transition period, during which social co- 
operation is to be substituted for competihon. It is a change 
for which wicked Sociahsts are not responsible, but one de- 
creed by the power behind evolution. But it is a period ot 
discomforts, of sufferings. What, however, would be thought 
of a quack who came with his " remedies " for keeping the 
first set of teeth in the jaws of the child ? This is absolutely 
the analogous position of George and Godm. 

Just as the first set of teeth is of excellent service to the 
child during some years, so the wage-system, competition, 
"private enterprise" were for a period an unmixed good to 
humanity and have conferred lasting benefits on society ; 
even private ownership of land was instituted, when it was, 
because it was an advantage to society at large and is not 
such an ahsohde, universal evil as George wants to make it 
out A few hundred years back all nations were very poor ;. 
if ail wealth then had been impartially distributed, it would 
have constituted the poverty of all. The first necessary 
step therefore to take, in order to raise society up on a higher 
plane, was to cause production to increase. This was the 
ultimate result of the English, the American and the French 
Eevolutions. By these revolutions the rich middle classes, 
the Plutocrats, were little by little raised to supreme power 
in the State, and with them came the wage-system, competi- 
tion and " Private Enterprise." These plutocrats were raised 
to power with the specific mission of increasing production, 
and they have done this work so well that society at present 
would be able, with the inventions, the machinery, the 
division of labor, now at her service, to satisfy the reasonable 
wants of all her members, with ease, and require but a very 
moderate amount of labor, perhaps, but four hours daily labor 
in return — if she were permitted. 

Some may here object that even the richest nations of our 
time are poor ; that also now if the wealthiest society would 
distribute her riches impartially to all, many would be m 
want. Suppose we grant that? But there is this difference 
that while society formerly could not with her best eflorta 
produce sufficient, now she can. Society can now produce 



in abundance, if she be permitted to employ all willing hand» 
and heads. But we again repeat: she is not permitted. 
She dares not 'produce all she can. Who prevents her? The 
Plutocrats, who haye supreme power in this nation, as in 
every other nation. They who monopolize all capital 
and land. They produce for the sake of pro/its, as already 
observed. They do not care a snap for society or social 
wants. They do not produce to satisfy tvants, hut to insure 
profits, and they stop production as soon as their profits are 
threatened — as soon as it does not pay. 

But that is not all. It is to the rule of these selfish pluto- 
crats, and to their wage-system, competition and " private 
enterprise" that the so-called "overproduction" and our 
crises are due, and not at all to the speculative rise in the 
value of land, as v .eorge declares — a most far-fetched reason 
and one he never would have hit upon, if land had not filled 
his whole horizon. 

We have seen that under the wage-system, as it at present 
attains, one part of the product of labor goes to the workmen 
under the form of wages, the other part, in the shape of rent,, 
interest and profits, goes into the pockets of landowners, 
capitalists, employers and other "gentlemen at large." 
■^ tatistics, taken from the Census Reports of the United 
States, show us that these two shares are about equal. The 
workpeople thus receive in wages only about half of what 
they produce, consequently they cannot with their best will 
buy back what they produce. On the other hand, the " gen- 
tlemen at large " who pocket the other half, get so much that 
they cannot with their best will consume it all. 

Here we have an all-sufficient reason for " overproduction," 
which curious term, of course, does not mean that there are 
not always plenty of empty stomachs that want to be filled,, 
and plenty of bare backs that want to be covered, but does 
mean that those who have money do not want any more 
goods, and those who do want them have no money where- 
with to buy them. The above reason explains the whole 
thing we say. It explains why goods are heaped up in ware- 
houses on one side, and why, on the other side, vast amounts 
of capital are lying idle — capital that ought to be used in buy- 
ing up the goods, but is not. It is by thus being the proxi- 
mate cause of " overproduction " that the wage-system^ 



- 16 — 

hitherto exclusively an evil to the workpeople, is fast becom- 

iner a social curse. ,„,-,.., j ^ 

'rLn it is, that in order to get rid of this " overproduc- 
tion" somehow, that the capitalist classes of all countries 
raise that cry, which is constantly dinned «to ,?« «^>;«jj 
" Foreign markets ! we to?/s« have foreign markets ! ^ And all 
our gofernments, being really nothing but governing com- 
mittees of these same classes, do their best to secure foreign 
markets for their clients. They send diplomatic Mtes pro- 
testing against exclusion of their pork, or sack Alexandria or 
rouse the sleepy Chinese with the roar of cannon, all nordei 
to get other people to trade. But these foreign markets are 
ulrfady beginning to dry up. Even half-savages learn some^ 
time or other to manufacture for themselves. Wha,t then :• 
Then this capitalist system must fall; there is no help lor it 
Por then the only way of creating an effective home dernand 
for the products is to give workpeople the full reward for 
their labor, that means to revolutionize the present system^ 
Thus we see, that the wage-system which has built up this 
capitaUst system is also, under our very eyes, digging its 

^"In'd competition is helping along. Competition makes our 
whole production planless, anarchic. It makes our producers 
lach produce for*^ himself, sell for hiniself, all in secrecj , 
though their success and failure depend exactly upon how 
mucf their rivals produce and sell. This is the proximate 
Tuse of our crisL-thoBe social pestilences that produce 
more misery than did the plagues of the Middle Ages. 

The wage-system and competition have thus m our days 
become more harmful than useful ; they, together, are now 
vndermming the Established Order f-°aled, and will in- 
evitably, before long, unless forestalled, lead to a catastrophe 
and a crash. 

Unless forestalled! Can it be forestalled? Yes, it can. 
Evolution, indeed, is pointing out to us the outlines ot tlie 

New Social Order. , . ,^ 

We can see all around us a constantly growing ooncentia- 
tion of production and distribution, which is more and more 
absorbing the efforts of isolated individu.ah, ; i" ^f • »^Xf. 
all efforts of isolated individuals impossible On the othei 
hand, we find in the nations that are pohtically most de- 



— 17 



veloped in the United States and Great Britain-yes Great 
Bn am, the country of Herbert Spencer and the home o^^the 

theOoUectiveWill, Tvhiohis more and more curtaihng and 
contracting the proprietary sphere of individuals ^ 

Is It not easy to see that the time will surely come when 

these two opposing forces will come in contadt? ^re^hev 

not already in contact in the nations we haye mentioned? Is 

not here and in Great Britain the Collective Will the nation 

ace to face with overgrown corporations, ,./io.4 ' We i» 

Can any one doubt the issue? Of course vrivate rrmtml 
mil have to give way to puUic control. CaSaK--wC ?n 
truth, have simply been performing the\nction oiV^. 
^tersiov society- will haye to give way to society, to rf^e 
nation democTafoca% organized. That is why Social sts de 
mand that ownership of all means of production land and 

nrt^ ^^ ""^f'^'^' ^"'^ ^^^ '^'^'^ Scans Tproduct'on 
placed under the supreme control of the Collective Wmand 
forever after worked for the colleAive benefit. We are the 
only party that formulate a programme which fulfills the i^! 
quirement of George himself, "it must swim with the cur 
rent of the times." We are the true co-operators of the 
ir-ower behind Evolution, and our plan is the only one that 
wShTng "'''" '""^ "^^'^^t^P^^ -"d crash thit °s Lrely 

The day after the means of production are placed under • 
coUective control, we have not a particle of doubt that even ' 
If the present ratio of wages be L a time maintained Ihe 

o7iiiVrtrcirto'=:r '^^^ '^ '"'''"'' ^°^ '^- ^^^y ^-- 

.,^r^t ^f''^'' ^J^r^"*"^®^ ''^ ^^^^ ^e are not willing to go 
step by step^ Oh, yes, we are. But it will be seen from tie 
^ove that George will reaUy not at all that which we wHl 
He wants Society to stand still, while Evolution demand^ i 
change. But we are perfectly willing to admit tharthi's 
change in he control of the mians of ^product?on need no 

that one step must involve and be followed by an other 

tCtTV ""^ ^' '"^^ ^ ^'f ^*^P' ^' gre^t tl^« demand in 
the call for a convention of the United Labor Party for 



— 18 — 

governmental control of telegraphs and railroads. This is a very 
proper first step. Thereafter insist on governmental control 
of the express business, and, thus, of one of the larger 
of the national enterprises after the other. 

And so we should like to see the municipalization, the tak- 
ing under municipal control, of the sale of coal, of milk, of 
ice, the operation of gas-works and horse-railroads, the 
carrying on of bakeries and drug stores — yes, and of saloons, 
too. 



But George will insist, that such control by the collective 
will is destructive of liberty, will crush individuality and 
make all personal property impossible. This is a perfect 
misapprehension of the matter. It will do no such thing. 

We do not for a moment contemplate that the State, even 
when democratically organized, shall do all the nation's busi- 
ness, or even a considerable part thereof. J^ot to speak of this, 
that all local affairs will be controlled by the various localities, 
we contemplate that the business of the nation will be carried 
on as a co operative business is carried on now, by Associations, 
or Trades Unions, if you will call them so, which themselves 
determine the functions of their members, their hours of work, 
and freely distribute their earnings among themselves. The 
collectivity will only have the three functions, of being General 
Manager^ General Statistician and General Arbitrator. As 
Statistician, it will determine how much is to be produced ; as 
.Manager, distribute the work and see to it that it is per- 
formed; as Arbitrator, it will see justice done between asso- 
ciation and association, between association and members. 

Then liberty will be realized for the first time, for dependence 
on individuals will cease ; individuality will, for the first time, 
have a real opportunity of developing itself, and property will 
be jjlaced on an unimpeachable basis, that of being the result 
of one's own exertions. Everybody will^ for the first time^ have 
a chance of acquiring property. 

But Interdependence will be strong. George is a thorough 
Individualist. He says in Social Prohlems, (page 108): ''A 
man has no right to compel any one else to work ic Tiis 
benefit ; nor have others a right to demand that he shall work 
for their benefit. This right to himself, to the use of his own 
powers and the results of his own exertions, is a natural, self- 



— 19 — 

evident right, which, as a matter of principle, no one can dis- 
pute, save upon the blasphemous contention that some men 
were created to work for other men." And so in one of his 
answers in his Standard^ we read : " Society had no right to 
command the labor of Sir Isaac Newton. He owed it no 
labor P 

These "principles," drawn from George's inner consciences, 
are false., " blasphemously " false. We belong to each other., 
and this rests upon the contention that all men are created to 
work for other i ie?i. George would, if he could, separate the 
Individual entirely from Society. But Society is an organism, 
whose membei*s are interdependent even now to a much 
greater degree than it seems. We are destined to become 
much more interdependent and, indeed, entitled to no blessings 
that our fellows cannot legitimately share. 

We are confident that the members of the United Labor 
Party are in that respect far more advanced than Henry 
George, and that just for this reason they \^11, in convention 
assembled, insist that their Party is a party of the vmrJcers 
against those that monopolize the means of labor • a party 
whose aim is the ohdbition of the wage-system^ and, in the end, 

UNDER THIS SIGN THOU WILT WIN I 



LAURENCE GROJS^LUND. 



on 
h 



1 1 1 1 n Mill 1 11 II 1 1 II II M II II I II 1 1 



THE NEW YORK hk 



j LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




013 476 950 6 



PUBLISHED MOT^v LY 



IN THE 



ENGLISH AND GERMA]^ LAiNvrQAGES. 



No. I. The Object of the Labor Movement, - Price, lOc. 

No. 2. Socialism and Anarchism (Antagonistic 

Opposites), ----- Price, 5c. 

No. 3. The True Solution of the Labor Question, 

by C. H. W. Cook, - - - - Price, 15c. 

No. 4. Capital, by Carl Marx (Extracts from), - Price. lOc. 

No. 5. Insufficiency of Henry George's Theory, 

by Laurence Gronlund, - - - Price, 5c» 



^Ul of the above sent post-paid on receqDt of price. A liberal discount io 
aoents. Wiite for our comi^letc English or G-ennan Catalogue. 



NEW YORK LABOR NEV8 CO. 

172 First avenue, 

NEW YORK. 



TrnTTTFi i L J-'JT i I I I ' l" i '' ' i i m - i i i ' ' ' ' ' ■ i i i i I I M M i j 



JOHN OEIir-F.'.lS PR'.NT, 2'2-'i4 N. WiLi.IAM ST , N. Y, 



